Karnataka Court March 2009 Judgments

Karur Vysya Bank Rep. by Sri. S. Balasubramanian, Asst. General Manage ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ101; (2010)ILLJ537Kant; 2009(4)KCCRSN214; 2009(6)AIRKarR84

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This Writ Petition is by the management, questioning the order dated 31st August 2007 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi produced at Annexure-E.2. Petitioner is a Bank established in 1916. In 1972, petitioner - Bank because Multi State Bank and since then the petitioner - Bank is following the norms and guidelines as per the Sastri Award, in the matter of transfer. Insofar as staff members of subordinate establishments are concerned, they are not ordinarily transferred and even if they are transferred, they are not transferred beyond the language area of the persons so transferred. In case of workmen not belonging to subordinate staff, as far as possible, there is no transfer outside the State or the language area, which the employee has been serving except with the consent of such employee.3. Employees of the petitioner - Bank have formed a Union in the name and style as 'Karur Vysya Bank Employees' Union', which is respondent No...

Sri M.M. Ramaswamy Vs. the Assistant Commissioner Sub-division and ors ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR1774; 2009(4)KarLJ677:2009(3)KCCR20612009(5)AIRKarR49:AIR2009NOC2512.

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. Order dated 31.5.200.8 passed by the Prl.Civil Judge (Sr. dn), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore on IA-8 filed in O.S. 256/1995 is challenged in this writ petition.2. Petitioner is the plaintiff before the Court below. He filed IA-8 under Order 23 Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying the Court below to record the terms and conditions of the agreement dt. 4.5.1997 entered into by the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant settling the dispute and to pass a decree accordingly. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, plaintiff contended that as the contest was between himself and 3rd defendant and as both of them had settled the dispute by entering into an agreement on 4.5.1997, the compromise may be recorded and the Suit may be disposed of in terms thereof. This petition was filed on 19.12.1998. The 3rd defendant filed objections denying such an agreement and compromise.3. The Court below has passed the impugned order rejecting the pet...

N. Basavaraj Since Deceased by His L.Rs. Vs. B. Sridhar and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR1534; 2009(3)KCCR1782; 2009(4)AIRKarR473; AIR2009NOC2691.

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal challenging the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 7197/2001 dated 22.9.2004 passed by the 18th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The subject matter of the suit was site Nos. 7 and 8 situated at B. Narayanappa @ Byatarayanapura village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property'). The suit filed by the plaintiff was for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or anybody claiming under or through them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The court below has dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment and decree.2. The plaintiff contends that originally Smt. M.V. Rajamma was the owner of the suit schedule property. Rajamma sold the suit schedule property along with certain other building sites to C.T. Basappa under a registered sale deed dated 6.10.1971. C.T. Basappa died leaving behind him his son Sr...

P. Vishwanath Shetty S/O Late P.N. Shetty Vs. K. Balachandra Shetty S/ ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3826; 2009(6)AIRKarR108(D.B)

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The respt No. 1/first plaintiff entered into a written agreement dated 20-02-1987 with the appellant/defet. No. 1 vide Ex.P.1 for transfer of shares of Navabharath Flange & Allied Industries. The total shares of the company was sold for face value of Rs. 20,00,000/- under Ex.P.1. Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid towards the part of the consideration. The balance of Rs. 10,00,000/- was agreed to be payable within six months. In Ex.P.1 it was also stipulated that if balance of Rs. 10,00,000/- is not paid on or before 30-03-1989, the appellant shall pay interest at 15% p.a. w.e.f. 31-07-1989 till the date of payment.2. The 19th respondent/ deft No. 2 was the Managing Director of the Company as on the date of the Ex. P. 1 and consenting witness and guarantor for payment both under Exs.P.1 and P.2. The appellant failed to pay the amount. Hence, the suit was filed by pltfs No. 1 to 18 on 1-7-92. The first plaintiff had signed the plaint. The Pltfs No. 2 to 18 have not signed th...

Altaf HussaIn and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR3361; 2009(4)KarLJ343; AIR2009NOC2323

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by persons claiming to be members/shareholders of the third respondent-Private Co-operative Bank who it appears were on the Board of Directors of the Bank.2. It is claimed that the first petitioner was the Chairman and second petitioner was a Director at the point of time when the management of the Bank was superseded and management of the affairs of the Bank was entrusted to the second respondent-Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies.3. The present writ petition is in the wake of the order dated 11-7-2008 (copy at Annexure-F) passed by the second respondent-Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies purporting to be an order in exercise of the powers of the Registrar under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act') and for the purpose of inquiring into the manner of management of the Bank earlier, particularly, when it was in the management of the elected representatives of the shareholders of th...

Gowramma and ors. Vs. Slum Clearance Board and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(6)KarLJ575

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.1. Since pending above writ appeal, it is reported that final notification has been passed under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum (Improvements and Clearance) Act, 1973, declaring the impugned land as slum, the learned Counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the writ appeal with liberty reserved to them to file writ petition challenging the final notification issued and to raise all objections raised in this writ appeal while challenging the final notification.2. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn granting the liberty as prayed for....

Dharmappa Gowda S/O. Annu Gowda and Sri Jinnappa Gowda S/O. Annu Gowda ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Heard learned Counsel Sri. K.N. Praveen Kumar for appellant, Sri. Basavaraj Kareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for R1 and R2 and learned Counsel Sri. Padubidri Mohan Rao for respondent No. 3.2. As per office note, this appeal is barred by 43 days. I.A.II/08 has been filed for condonation of delay. For the reasons recorded in the said application, we are satisfied with the explanation given. Hence, I.A.II/08 is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. With consent, arguments heard.3. Unsuccessful petitioners of W.P. No. 20955/2003 are before us challenging the order dated 17.3.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.4. In the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the appellants herein had prayed to quash the order dated 27.1.2003 passed by the Land Tribunal, Puttur. The dispute in this matter pertains to Sy. No. 57/5 having an area of 42 cents.5. Learned Single Judge recorded a finding that, after veri...

University of Agricultural Sciences and anr. Vs. Judicial Layout Resid ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR1497; 2009(5)KarLJ682

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is by the first and second defendants in a pending suit in OS No. 16158 of 2005 on the file of the court of the city civil Judge at Bangalore, Mayohall, [CCH-21] aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.2008 passed on an interlocutory application filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure - the application filed by the plaintiff in the suit and which has been ordered in favour of the plaintiff.2. The application itself reads as under:That for the reasons stated in the annexed affidavit, the plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct/permit the Defendant No. 4 to carry out works relating to levelling and metalling and asphalting the road connecting 3 cross, Judicial Layout, GKVK, Bangalore ['the schedule road'] in the interest of justice and equity.3. The application was in the pending suit, a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property described as a road within the boundaries of ABCD...